The problem is, where do you define the standard? The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place. You had people crusading against saturated fats, and replacing them with trans fats which we now realize are significantly worse for you than the saturated fats they replaced, and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets, even though those carbohydrates metabolize into glucose as a natural part of digestion (some of them, faster than table sugar does), and trigger insulin production which, among other things, is a hormonal cue for your body to start storing energy in fat cells. 40 years later, they're *still* teaching this crap in schools. You want to know why people are fat, it's because they've been fed bad information for their entire lives.
You are exactly correct! In fact, shortly after I was diagnosed as a Type II diabetic, I went into my Dr.'s office with a "food pyramid" that I had (re) designed. It was essentially the INVERSE (but not quite) of the USDA food pyramid we've been seeing all our lives in the U.S.
My Dr. took one look at it and said "You should patent this."
I have another comment regarding caloric restriction and weight loss: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!
Unless you truly get to concentration-camp levels of food-deprivation, that same genetic predisposition to weight gain also allows most people alive today to SERIOUSLY "turn down the metabolic fires" if their bodies even get a HINT that food is becoming more scarce. And the more often someone "yo-yo diets" (diets then stops, then starts again), the more pronounced the effect. In fact, there was a study where they yo-yo dieted some rats (or mice) a few times, then they tried to make them lose weight through caloric restriction. They found that they literally had to STARVE the rats to get them to lose weight!
No one has that much "willpower". And no one who is naturally thin has any right to say differently. Period.
The late Dr. Atkins was right on. Using a slightly self-modified version of his suggested diet plan, I was personally able to drop 85 pounds in nine months, and that was without one bit of exercise, and without "going hungry" even a little bit.
Your body derives energy by converting foodstuffs to glucose, through processes of varying complexity (and energy-conversion COST). Mother nature isn't stupid; so your body (mostly) converts the easiest-to-reduce-to-glucose substances first. This means your body will convert, in decreasing order of preference:
1. Simple Sugars (glucose, fructose primarily). That's why Gatorade has GLUCOSE in it.
3. Carbohydrates (I won't get into the simple and complex carbohydrates levels here, or the Glycemic Index (which all this is based on))
4. Body Fat stores. There is a hormone called Glucagon that is responsible for this. It is kind of the "anti-insulin".
5. Ingested Fats. These take (far) more energy to convert to glucose than internal fat stores, which is why EATING FAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU FAT!
6. Ingested Proteins. These generally raise the blood glucose only slightly, and primarily contribute other things to the body (L-Arginine, L-Orinthine, etc.). BUT, in food-scarce (or dieting) times, they also keep your body from consuming its food-of-last-resort: YOU.
7. Proteins from the body itself. That's the "You", above. When your body has to resort to this "food", death usually soon follows...
So, with the list above, it is easy to see that simply restricting carbohydrates FORCES the body to do its normal "food selection" routine, and so it picks the next-easiest "food", which is BODY FAT. "Burning" body fat produces a "combustion by-product", a Ketone, which then is eliminated through the urine. That is why some Atkins followers use "Ketostix(r)" to monitor this activity, and why the sugar-lobby keeps ha
Parent's comment is WAY too eugenic at the end, and he "human slugs" epithet is entirely uncalled-for (especially when followed up with the correct statement that this is primarily an evolutionary process that is now out-of-step with our current (temporary) food supply situation).
However, the parent's assessment of the cause of most type II diabetes, and how it so neatly correlates with body-type, is spot-on.
I disagree, however, that evolution doesn't play much of a part in this, or else we wouldn't have so many "human slugs". Quite the opposite.
And ASLR was adopted 12 months ago and updated system patching. Looks like what Micrsoft has done for years Apple has caught up in some ways.
What is noteworthy is Apple cant make their OS secure enough to hold FIPS 140-2 certification.
So now, it doesn't matter that Apple HAS certain security features; but rather WHEN they were adopted? Again, changing the parameters of the original statement "completely unprepared".
OS X has had limited ASLR since 10.5 (Leopard), which launched in 2007. Windows introduced limited ASLR in Vista, which launched... in 2007. So where are those "years" you crowed about? BTW, you will note that not only does Windows ASLR have to be disabled for "compatibility reasons", but that it has several known shortcomings. In contrast, OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)'s ASLR appears to be not only system-wide, but also a much more robust implementation than in either Windows or Linux.
And as far as FIPS 140-2 is concerned, both OS X and Windows 7 can be brought to FIPS 140-2 Level 1. Neither goes further. But keep in mind that NIST hasn't had a chance to test against OS X Mountain Lion (10.8), which has security features that are stronger than its predecessors. So now what?
So, you might do just 10 seconds of research before you open your mouth next time, AC.
Oh, and that article you mentioned is far from unbiased, and is chock-full of inaccuracies and hyperbole, as I have pointed out in this comment. However, a complete analysis of the lies and exaggerations in that article would take about 10 pages, and I don't have time for that right now, especially for an AC.
Well they copied at least as many features for those products in return...the only innovation I can think of recently is the searchable start menu,
Oh, you mean the one that STILL takes more than a minute to aggregate results, and which the result list is so "fragile" that investigating a search "hit" almost ALWAYS LOSES the entire search result?
As opposed to Apple's Spotlight, which never seems to take more than a few seconds to aggregate its search results, and which "remembers" your last search if you click on the Spotlight menu again, so you are free to check out various search results without "losing" the results...
Not to mention that XP, Vista and 7, Office, etc all had features that were copied by competitors. Just because the final product isn't OMFGAMAZING!!! doesn't mean it didn't contain some good innovations.
Well, I don't know what, if any "innovations" competitors (well, that would pretty much be... Apple) copied from XP, since OS X came out FIRST, and as far as Vista and Windows 7 go...
Same with Steve Jobs. The guy was not technical, at all.
I used to think that, too. But maybe not...
If you look closely at the Steve Jobs memo auctioned by Sotheby's on June 15, 2012, you will clearly see that apparently Jobs DID have some component-level hardware design skills when he worked at Atari.
Meanwhile, ever since Windows 7 came out, I've felt that Windows has better usability than the Linux desktops I've tried and massively better usability than the Mac I have to use at work.
I'm in the opposite boat: I have to use a Windows 7 machine at work, and although it is markedly better than other Windows versions (I have experience with everything from Windows 3.0 on up), I really wonder about your "usability" assessment. Why do you think that Win 7 has "massively better usability" than OS X, cuz I'm not seein' it, personally.
Its current incarnation is more like the short lived "Spy" magazine for well off literate people. The current editor was an editor (and one of the founders of?) Spy about a million years ago, and it shows. If you're a geek and want to maintain some contact to popular culture it's not a bad way to catch up once a month.
And don't forget, it was Vanity Fair that published what is widely considered to be the "Father of Phone Phreaking" article.
What about Ballmer? Does his direction in any way inspire you, or are you like the rest of us and just wishing he'd go away?
Speaking as an Apple fan, I hope the great Steven Ballmer continues his spectacular reign as CEO long into the 21st Century. In fact, I hope they have his head preserved, Futurama-style, to lead Microsoft down its present path until they are inevitably DE-LISTED on the stock exchange...
But I fear that the MS stockholders will band together and demand his ouster before that happens (sigh).
Yeah, the first line SHOULD read:
Microsoft has a long and storied history of blatant plagiarism in the tech industry, and the company has shamelessly copied innovation for decades.
I remember that slanderous campaign, showed how sad and desperate apple had become. Make up a bunch of BS lies and then hide them under the generic "PC" name so that it wasn't considered the fraud it was. PC became the new brand X, and as long as they didn't say either Windows or that they don't have those problems then it was technically legal. The first step towards the patheticness that is apple, now they patent troll instead using patents of ideas they stole from others (like patenting Neonode's slide to unlock patent, patenting the Sony Vaio, the Android Vega tablet from 2009...)
And I'll bet you think they are all running OSX too.... sorry to burst your bubble, but they aren't. They are using Linux
Funny. You're the first person I have EVER heard that called the ad campaign "slanderous" or "lying".
WTF are you talking about with you babbling about "stolen patents" and "Android Vega tablets" and "Sony Vaio"???
But since you are, we'll discuss these one at a time:
1. Patenting Neonode's "slide to unlock": Well, the patent case in question was against HTC, but it wasn't HTC that was considered by the UK Court to be "Prior Art"; it was ANOTHER phone (the Neonode) that had an "unlock gesture". Although on a touch-screen device, it's kind of hard to avoid SOME kind of unlock GESTURE... So I guess both Apple AND HTC might have infringed... But isn't is curious that NeoNode didn't see it as "infringement", or wouldn't THEY have sued APPLE???
2. Patenting Sony's Vaio: This is just asinine. Are you saying that because the Vaio is thin, and the MacBook Air (and now MBPwRD) are thin, that SOMEhow "Apple Patented the Sony Vaio"??? Yeahrightsure. The Vaio is a milled aluminum "Unibody" construction. Yeahrightsure. The Vaio has a glass, multitouch trackpad with the left-button built-in. Yeahrightsure. The Vaio has MagSafe. Yeahrightsure. The Vaio has Thunderbolt. Shall I go on?
3. Andoid Vega Tablet from 2009. The WHAT? You mean that big IPHONE clone??? Riiiiight. Let's just take a look at the TIMING of who had what first: You're saying that Apple, who already HAD an iOS (f/k/a iPhone OS)-based, ARM-based, capacitive multitouch device ON THE MARKET for TWO YEARS prior to the Vega tablet, SOMEHOW tooled-up the iPad in the TWO MONTHS between the Vega's ANNOUNCEMENT on November 13, 2009, and the iPad's ANNOUNCEMENT on January, 27 2010. If you believe that is even remotely possible for ANY company, even one the size of Apple, you are SADLY mistaken, and of course know NOTHING about R&D and manufacturing processes. Keep in mind that Apple had HUNDREDS of WORKING iPads to show around and even GIVE AWAY at that January, 2010 announcement. In fact, the Vega wasn't even supposed to be on the market until WELL after the April, 2010 "on-shelf-date" of the iPad. So who is copying who here? It's not that the iPad looks like the Vega, it's that the Vega looks like.... AN IPHONE. And, as we all know, by 2009 there were already MILLIONS of iPhones in people's (and apparently Innovative (ha!) Converged Devices' Seattle (Hmm. Redmond?) labs, too, eh?)
And what's all this "bet you think they are all running OS X too. [...] They are using Linux."
What's the antecedent of the word "They" in your blathering? Are you talking about the NeoNode N1, the Vaio, and the Vega? Or are you talking about the iPhone, the MacBook Air and the iPad? Because in EITHER case, you are incorrect. The NeoNode N1 and the Vega Tablet run ANDROID, which is NOT Linux, any more than iOS is OS X. Yes, they are derivatives; but with enough differences to make them classified as their own OSes. And as far as the Vaio goes, I'm pretty sure that MOST (if not all) of them went out of the factory with WINDOWS installed, NOT Linux.
And I really shouldn't have to explain to ANYONE on Slashdot that OS X (nor iOS) ISN'T LINUX. So, you
But let's put it into context. There may be a 1000 pieces of Linux malware out there, but very few of them can self replicate, very few of them do much more damage than stay in your/home directory without root access and even more of them are proof in concept that have been closed with security patches.
Macs are the same. Compared to Windows they don't get viruses. Mathematically speaking, the amount of attacks is so small that Apple could still say "Virus free" and get away with it, they just can't explain the statistics to the layman.
So, Linux and Mac are still Virus Free if you look at it from a purely statistical angle.
Wrong.
ONLY OS X remains VIRUS free. "Nearly zero" is NOT ZERO. In its over ten year history, OS X has NEVER had a SELF-REPLICATING piece of malware. Trojans simply don't count; because no amount of "security" can get around social engineering. But where the rubber meets the road is in malware that can spread PC to PC in a P2P fashion.
the average mac user paid more money for a mac because they thought windows was too hard.
No. The average Mac user THESE days purchased a Mac because they were TIRED of Windows.
*citation needed because your name shows your heavily biased*
Education needed because your posting shows you don't understand basic grammar. (you/you're).
Oh wow. A comment based on my username. How completely unoriginal...
You might remember a little ad campaign colloquially called the "PC vs. Mac" Ads. The entire ad campaign was targeted at Windows victims (users) who were fed-up with being fed-on by every malware writer from here to Bangalore. How's a multimillion ad campaign that lasted for over a year for a citation?
And attend ANY Linux developer conference. MacBooks as far as the eye can see. Do you really think THOSE people are using Macs because they "Can't figure out Windows?"
From your username i wont take offence at your personal attacks. I speaking ill about Apple is akin to calling your mother a whore.
...And then you respond with a personal attack.
Moron.
If an app was developed by an unknown developer — one with no Developer ID — Gatekeeper can keep your Mac safe by blocking the app from being installed.
Apple's containment process is unsavoury to ones computing freedom and precisely the problem with the security model. It's like the cave man vs the modern human, you give the cave man some raw meat and he eats it no troubles. Give it too the modern man and he dies because of sort of bacteria in the meat.
Apple's germ free environment is why when the malware industry does hit. It will hit them hard.
So, let me get this straight: You said that "Apple is completely unprepared for the shitstorm that is to follow.". I countered with unequivocal proof that your statement was false. And now, since your statement has been refuted, you SWITCH your argument to a combination of an ad hominem attack (which was couched in a statement that you weren't going to respond to me calling you a clueless moron (which you are)), but more importantly, you now say that one aspect of Apple's security methodology (signed binaries) is "too restrictive" (because it's too restrictive for Devs. to sign up for a FREE signature (Developer accounts cost $100/yr, and that includes as many certs. as you wish to create; or you can use an industry-standard cert. from any one of a number of authorities).
But what you failed to realize is that GateKeeper's "sterilization-level" is adjustable by the user; so s/he can decide for hirself how much digital E. Coli that they want to subject themselves to.
From the "What is Security" guide I linked to in my original response to your "Completely Unprepared" post:
Gatekeeper gives you three security options. Just like today, you can download and install apps from anywhere on the web. Or you can choose the safest option and download and install apps only from the Mac App Store. Or use the default option, which allows you to download apps from the Mac App Store as well as those signed with a Developer ID. If an app is unsigned, Gatekeeper blocks the app from being installed and warns you that it did not come from an identified developer. If you’re sure the app is safe, you can manually override Gatekeeper by Control-clicking the app and choosing to open it.
So, since in ANY setting of GateKeeper, the user is free to 'eat the tainted meat' with just a Click, tell me how GateKeeper is "unsavory to ones computing freedom."???
But the biggest question is: "How does all this mean that APPLE is "completely unprepared"? From where I sit, it looks like OS X is much MORE prepared than Windows or Linux for any possible "shitstorm".
Apple has been doing in the pro line I have a feeling Cook will just wash his hands of X86 completely instead.
First, you really aren't seeing much of Cook's influence yet. Apple is a big-ass battleship which takes some time to maneuver, and the "turns" you are seeing now were plotted out and called down from the bridge by Admiral Jobs, not Captain Cook.
Also, I can't remember where I heard it (Tim Cook, actually, IIRC); but "Apple" has stated that the Mac Pro is going to get some serious love in 2013.
Also remember a Trojan/Worm/whatever isn't about being known, it's the unknown malicious apps out there that are the concern. Techs find an exploit here or there but is that simply the tip of the iceberg? and Apple's security focus is simply under manned and considered an afterthought?
And keep in mind that these security features are built into an OS with NO known self-replicating malware. So no, I wouldn't say that Security is an "Afterthought" with Apple.
Pro Tip: If you don't know about something, then STFU.
And keep in mind that those features are already installed in an OS that has a spotless track record as far as self-replicating malware (worms and true viruses, rather than stupid-ass Trojans).
So yeah, Apple is just sitting there with their proverbial pants down, waiting for insertion...
Slashdot Mirror
With my anecdotal experience, I would say being poor can make you fat.
RIGHTY-O!!! Give that man a Grapefruit!!!
There ain't NUTHIN' cheaper than CARBOHYDRATES!!!
In fact, my personal Atkins experiment ended because I simply couldn't AFFORD to carbohydrate-restrict anymore, due to unemployment.
The problem is, where do you define the standard? The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place. You had people crusading against saturated fats, and replacing them with trans fats which we now realize are significantly worse for you than the saturated fats they replaced, and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets, even though those carbohydrates metabolize into glucose as a natural part of digestion (some of them, faster than table sugar does), and trigger insulin production which, among other things, is a hormonal cue for your body to start storing energy in fat cells. 40 years later, they're *still* teaching this crap in schools. You want to know why people are fat, it's because they've been fed bad information for their entire lives.
You are exactly correct! In fact, shortly after I was diagnosed as a Type II diabetic, I went into my Dr.'s office with a "food pyramid" that I had (re) designed. It was essentially the INVERSE (but not quite) of the USDA food pyramid we've been seeing all our lives in the U.S.
My Dr. took one look at it and said "You should patent this."
I have another comment regarding caloric restriction and weight loss: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!
Unless you truly get to concentration-camp levels of food-deprivation, that same genetic predisposition to weight gain also allows most people alive today to SERIOUSLY "turn down the metabolic fires" if their bodies even get a HINT that food is becoming more scarce. And the more often someone "yo-yo diets" (diets then stops, then starts again), the more pronounced the effect. In fact, there was a study where they yo-yo dieted some rats (or mice) a few times, then they tried to make them lose weight through caloric restriction. They found that they literally had to STARVE the rats to get them to lose weight!
No one has that much "willpower". And no one who is naturally thin has any right to say differently. Period.
The late Dr. Atkins was right on. Using a slightly self-modified version of his suggested diet plan, I was personally able to drop 85 pounds in nine months, and that was without one bit of exercise, and without "going hungry" even a little bit.
Your body derives energy by converting foodstuffs to glucose, through processes of varying complexity (and energy-conversion COST). Mother nature isn't stupid; so your body (mostly) converts the easiest-to-reduce-to-glucose substances first. This means your body will convert, in decreasing order of preference:
1. Simple Sugars (glucose, fructose primarily). That's why Gatorade has GLUCOSE in it.
2. Complex Sugars (sucrose, dextrose, maltose(?) )
3. Carbohydrates (I won't get into the simple and complex carbohydrates levels here, or the Glycemic Index (which all this is based on))
4. Body Fat stores. There is a hormone called Glucagon that is responsible for this. It is kind of the "anti-insulin".
5. Ingested Fats. These take (far) more energy to convert to glucose than internal fat stores, which is why EATING FAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU FAT!
6. Ingested Proteins. These generally raise the blood glucose only slightly, and primarily contribute other things to the body (L-Arginine, L-Orinthine, etc.). BUT, in food-scarce (or dieting) times, they also keep your body from consuming its food-of-last-resort: YOU.
7. Proteins from the body itself. That's the "You", above. When your body has to resort to this "food", death usually soon follows...
So, with the list above, it is easy to see that simply restricting carbohydrates FORCES the body to do its normal "food selection" routine, and so it picks the next-easiest "food", which is BODY FAT. "Burning" body fat produces a "combustion by-product", a Ketone, which then is eliminated through the urine. That is why some Atkins followers use "Ketostix(r)" to monitor this activity, and why the sugar-lobby keeps ha
Parent's comment is WAY too eugenic at the end, and he "human slugs" epithet is entirely uncalled-for (especially when followed up with the correct statement that this is primarily an evolutionary process that is now out-of-step with our current (temporary) food supply situation).
However, the parent's assessment of the cause of most type II diabetes, and how it so neatly correlates with body-type, is spot-on.
I disagree, however, that evolution doesn't play much of a part in this, or else we wouldn't have so many "human slugs". Quite the opposite.
http://blog.lumension.com/5365/what-the-security-features-of-apples-mountain-lion-mean-for-the-enterprise/
And ASLR was adopted 12 months ago and updated system patching. Looks like what Micrsoft has done for years Apple has caught up in some ways.
What is noteworthy is Apple cant make their OS secure enough to hold FIPS 140-2 certification.
So now, it doesn't matter that Apple HAS certain security features; but rather WHEN they were adopted? Again, changing the parameters of the original statement "completely unprepared".
OS X has had limited ASLR since 10.5 (Leopard), which launched in 2007. Windows introduced limited ASLR in Vista, which launched... in 2007. So where are those "years" you crowed about? BTW, you will note that not only does Windows ASLR have to be disabled for "compatibility reasons", but that it has several known shortcomings. In contrast, OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)'s ASLR appears to be not only system-wide, but also a much more robust implementation than in either Windows or Linux.
And as far as FIPS 140-2 is concerned, both OS X and Windows 7 can be brought to FIPS 140-2 Level 1. Neither goes further. But keep in mind that NIST hasn't had a chance to test against OS X Mountain Lion (10.8), which has security features that are stronger than its predecessors. So now what?
Oh, and apparently you are behind on your reading; for here is an Apple Tech Support document on how to set up and maintain a FIPS-compliant system in OS X 10.7 (Lion). The tech support article also has "Additional Information" regarding OS X's FIPS 140-2 compliance.
So, you might do just 10 seconds of research before you open your mouth next time, AC.
Oh, and that article you mentioned is far from unbiased, and is chock-full of inaccuracies and hyperbole, as I have pointed out in this comment. However, a complete analysis of the lies and exaggerations in that article would take about 10 pages, and I don't have time for that right now, especially for an AC.
1. It was a JOKE.
2. I have seen that sentiment expressed before by other posters, and you didn't come down on them.
3. I have seen MANY posts that more or less celebrated Steve Jobs' death. Now how "petty and sad" is THAT? Yet you remained silent.
4. I didn't wish bad on other PEOPLE; just other CORPORATIONS. There's a difference. If you notice, I actually wished that Ballmer would live FOREVER.
5. It was a JOKE.
Well they copied at least as many features for those products in return...the only innovation I can think of recently is the searchable start menu,
Oh, you mean the one that STILL takes more than a minute to aggregate results, and which the result list is so "fragile" that investigating a search "hit" almost ALWAYS LOSES the entire search result?
As opposed to Apple's Spotlight, which never seems to take more than a few seconds to aggregate its search results, and which "remembers" your last search if you click on the Spotlight menu again, so you are free to check out various search results without "losing" the results...
Not to mention that XP, Vista and 7, Office, etc all had features that were copied by competitors. Just because the final product isn't OMFGAMAZING!!! doesn't mean it didn't contain some good innovations.
Well, I don't know what, if any "innovations" competitors (well, that would pretty much be... Apple) copied from XP, since OS X came out FIRST, and as far as Vista and Windows 7 go...
Here's a photo of Apple's Research facility
Same with Steve Jobs. The guy was not technical, at all.
I used to think that, too. But maybe not...
If you look closely at the Steve Jobs memo auctioned by Sotheby's on June 15, 2012, you will clearly see that apparently Jobs DID have some component-level hardware design skills when he worked at Atari.
Meanwhile, ever since Windows 7 came out, I've felt that Windows has better usability than the Linux desktops I've tried and massively better usability than the Mac I have to use at work.
I'm in the opposite boat: I have to use a Windows 7 machine at work, and although it is markedly better than other Windows versions (I have experience with everything from Windows 3.0 on up), I really wonder about your "usability" assessment. Why do you think that Win 7 has "massively better usability" than OS X, cuz I'm not seein' it, personally.
> my office smelled like my Aunt Lena's underwear drawer.
That's a disturbingly specific choice over the usual "smelled like a whorehouse".
Oh, so you KNEW PopeRatzo's Aunt?
Sorry, Ratzo; couldn't resist. No disrespect intended.
Its current incarnation is more like the short lived "Spy" magazine for well off literate people. The current editor was an editor (and one of the founders of?) Spy about a million years ago, and it shows. If you're a geek and want to maintain some contact to popular culture it's not a bad way to catch up once a month.
And don't forget, it was Vanity Fair that published what is widely considered to be the "Father of Phone Phreaking" article.
VERY odd editorial focus that magazine has...
They make a good sturdy surface to roll joints on. I imagine.
If you want your joints to taste like perfume, I guess...
What about Ballmer? Does his direction in any way inspire you, or are you like the rest of us and just wishing he'd go away?
Speaking as an Apple fan, I hope the great Steven Ballmer continues his spectacular reign as CEO long into the 21st Century. In fact, I hope they have his head preserved, Futurama-style, to lead Microsoft down its present path until they are inevitably DE-LISTED on the stock exchange...
But I fear that the MS stockholders will band together and demand his ouster before that happens (sigh).
Yeah, the first line SHOULD read: Microsoft has a long and storied history of blatant plagiarism in the tech industry, and the company has shamelessly copied innovation for decades.
I remember that slanderous campaign, showed how sad and desperate apple had become. Make up a bunch of BS lies and then hide them under the generic "PC" name so that it wasn't considered the fraud it was. PC became the new brand X, and as long as they didn't say either Windows or that they don't have those problems then it was technically legal. The first step towards the patheticness that is apple, now they patent troll instead using patents of ideas they stole from others (like patenting Neonode's slide to unlock patent, patenting the Sony Vaio, the Android Vega tablet from 2009...)
And I'll bet you think they are all running OSX too.... sorry to burst your bubble, but they aren't. They are using Linux
Funny. You're the first person I have EVER heard that called the ad campaign "slanderous" or "lying".
WTF are you talking about with you babbling about "stolen patents" and "Android Vega tablets" and "Sony Vaio"???
But since you are, we'll discuss these one at a time:
1. Patenting Neonode's "slide to unlock": Well, the patent case in question was against HTC, but it wasn't HTC that was considered by the UK Court to be "Prior Art"; it was ANOTHER phone (the Neonode) that had an "unlock gesture". Although on a touch-screen device, it's kind of hard to avoid SOME kind of unlock GESTURE... So I guess both Apple AND HTC might have infringed... But isn't is curious that NeoNode didn't see it as "infringement", or wouldn't THEY have sued APPLE???
2. Patenting Sony's Vaio: This is just asinine. Are you saying that because the Vaio is thin, and the MacBook Air (and now MBPwRD) are thin, that SOMEhow "Apple Patented the Sony Vaio"??? Yeahrightsure. The Vaio is a milled aluminum "Unibody" construction. Yeahrightsure. The Vaio has a glass, multitouch trackpad with the left-button built-in. Yeahrightsure. The Vaio has MagSafe. Yeahrightsure. The Vaio has Thunderbolt. Shall I go on?
3. Andoid Vega Tablet from 2009. The WHAT? You mean that big IPHONE clone??? Riiiiight. Let's just take a look at the TIMING of who had what first: You're saying that Apple, who already HAD an iOS (f/k/a iPhone OS)-based, ARM-based, capacitive multitouch device ON THE MARKET for TWO YEARS prior to the Vega tablet, SOMEHOW tooled-up the iPad in the TWO MONTHS between the Vega's ANNOUNCEMENT on November 13, 2009, and the iPad's ANNOUNCEMENT on January, 27 2010. If you believe that is even remotely possible for ANY company, even one the size of Apple, you are SADLY mistaken, and of course know NOTHING about R&D and manufacturing processes. Keep in mind that Apple had HUNDREDS of WORKING iPads to show around and even GIVE AWAY at that January, 2010 announcement. In fact, the Vega wasn't even supposed to be on the market until WELL after the April, 2010 "on-shelf-date" of the iPad. So who is copying who here? It's not that the iPad looks like the Vega, it's that the Vega looks like.... AN IPHONE. And, as we all know, by 2009 there were already MILLIONS of iPhones in people's (and apparently Innovative (ha!) Converged Devices' Seattle (Hmm. Redmond?) labs, too, eh?)
And what's all this "bet you think they are all running OS X too. [...] They are using Linux."
What's the antecedent of the word "They" in your blathering? Are you talking about the NeoNode N1, the Vaio, and the Vega? Or are you talking about the iPhone, the MacBook Air and the iPad? Because in EITHER case, you are incorrect. The NeoNode N1 and the Vega Tablet run ANDROID, which is NOT Linux, any more than iOS is OS X. Yes, they are derivatives; but with enough differences to make them classified as their own OSes. And as far as the Vaio goes, I'm pretty sure that MOST (if not all) of them went out of the factory with WINDOWS installed, NOT Linux.
And I really shouldn't have to explain to ANYONE on Slashdot that OS X (nor iOS) ISN'T LINUX. So, you
But let's put it into context. There may be a 1000 pieces of Linux malware out there, but very few of them can self replicate, very few of them do much more damage than stay in your /home directory without root access and even more of them are proof in concept that have been closed with security patches.
Macs are the same. Compared to Windows they don't get viruses. Mathematically speaking, the amount of attacks is so small that Apple could still say "Virus free" and get away with it, they just can't explain the statistics to the layman.
So, Linux and Mac are still Virus Free if you look at it from a purely statistical angle.
Wrong.
ONLY OS X remains VIRUS free. "Nearly zero" is NOT ZERO. In its over ten year history, OS X has NEVER had a SELF-REPLICATING piece of malware. Trojans simply don't count; because no amount of "security" can get around social engineering. But where the rubber meets the road is in malware that can spread PC to PC in a P2P fashion.
And OS X simply doesn't have ANY of that. Period.
the average mac user paid more money for a mac because they thought windows was too hard.
No. The average Mac user THESE days purchased a Mac because they were TIRED of Windows.
*citation needed because your name shows your heavily biased*
Education needed because your posting shows you don't understand basic grammar. (you/you're).
Oh wow. A comment based on my username. How completely unoriginal...
You might remember a little ad campaign colloquially called the "PC vs. Mac" Ads. The entire ad campaign was targeted at Windows victims (users) who were fed-up with being fed-on by every malware writer from here to Bangalore. How's a multimillion ad campaign that lasted for over a year for a citation?
And attend ANY Linux developer conference. MacBooks as far as the eye can see. Do you really think THOSE people are using Macs because they "Can't figure out Windows?"
From your username i wont take offence at your personal attacks. I speaking ill about Apple is akin to calling your mother a whore.
...And then you respond with a personal attack.
Moron.
If an app was developed by an unknown developer — one with no Developer ID — Gatekeeper can keep your Mac safe by blocking the app from being installed.
Apple's containment process is unsavoury to ones computing freedom and precisely the problem with the security model. It's like the cave man vs the modern human, you give the cave man some raw meat and he eats it no troubles. Give it too the modern man and he dies because of sort of bacteria in the meat.
Apple's germ free environment is why when the malware industry does hit. It will hit them hard.
So, let me get this straight: You said that "Apple is completely unprepared for the shitstorm that is to follow.". I countered with unequivocal proof that your statement was false. And now, since your statement has been refuted, you SWITCH your argument to a combination of an ad hominem attack (which was couched in a statement that you weren't going to respond to me calling you a clueless moron (which you are)), but more importantly, you now say that one aspect of Apple's security methodology (signed binaries) is "too restrictive" (because it's too restrictive for Devs. to sign up for a FREE signature (Developer accounts cost $100/yr, and that includes as many certs. as you wish to create; or you can use an industry-standard cert. from any one of a number of authorities).
But what you failed to realize is that GateKeeper's "sterilization-level" is adjustable by the user; so s/he can decide for hirself how much digital E. Coli that they want to subject themselves to.
From the "What is Security" guide I linked to in my original response to your "Completely Unprepared" post: Gatekeeper gives you three security options. Just like today, you can download and install apps from anywhere on the web. Or you can choose the safest option and download and install apps only from the Mac App Store. Or use the default option, which allows you to download apps from the Mac App Store as well as those signed with a Developer ID. If an app is unsigned, Gatekeeper blocks the app from being installed and warns you that it did not come from an identified developer. If you’re sure the app is safe, you can manually override Gatekeeper by Control-clicking the app and choosing to open it.
So, since in ANY setting of GateKeeper, the user is free to 'eat the tainted meat' with just a Click, tell me how GateKeeper is "unsavory to ones computing freedom."???
But the biggest question is: "How does all this mean that APPLE is "completely unprepared"? From where I sit, it looks like OS X is much MORE prepared than Windows or Linux for any possible "shitstorm".
Apple has been doing in the pro line I have a feeling Cook will just wash his hands of X86 completely instead.
First, you really aren't seeing much of Cook's influence yet. Apple is a big-ass battleship which takes some time to maneuver, and the "turns" you are seeing now were plotted out and called down from the bridge by Admiral Jobs, not Captain Cook.
Also, I can't remember where I heard it (Tim Cook, actually, IIRC); but "Apple" has stated that the Mac Pro is going to get some serious love in 2013.
So, it's true in the same general sense it's true for Linux, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, zOS etc...
Actually, Linux has nearly 1,000 pieces of reported malware, including some self-replicating ones.
Maybe if mac fan boys wouldn't have kept on with the "macs don't get virii" through the years it wouldn't get the press its getting now.
Show me a true, self-replicating piece of OS X malware. Trojans don't count, and that's ALL there have been in the wild.
Also remember a Trojan/Worm/whatever isn't about being known, it's the unknown malicious apps out there that are the concern. Techs find an exploit here or there but is that simply the tip of the iceberg? and Apple's security focus is simply under manned and considered an afterthought?
Does THIS look like an afterthought?!?
And keep in mind that these security features are built into an OS with NO known self-replicating malware. So no, I wouldn't say that Security is an "Afterthought" with Apple.
Pro Tip: If you don't know about something, then STFU.
the average mac user paid more money for a mac because they thought windows was too hard.
No. The average Mac user THESE days purchased a Mac because they were TIRED of Windows.
Apple is completely unprepared for the shit storm that is to follow.
You're right, of course. Apple is completely unprepared.
And keep in mind that those features are already installed in an OS that has a spotless track record as far as self-replicating malware (worms and true viruses, rather than stupid-ass Trojans).
So yeah, Apple is just sitting there with their proverbial pants down, waiting for insertion...
Clueless moron.